Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to pay my respects to Howard Greene for being such a good friend and a solid worker around here in the U.S. Senate. Wherever he has worked he has served with distinction, he served with a great deal of verve, and he has been a very good friend for all of us. I would feel very badly if I did not get out here and say a few nice things about him, because Howard has always had an open mind, he has always been willing to listen, he has always tried to help. He has helped me on a number of occasions, as I know he has every Senator, and he deserves our respect, and I certainly want to pay my respect to him today. I am sorry he is retiring, but I wish him the very best in his retirement, and I hope, if there is ever any occasion for me to give any assistance or help to him, I would certainly like to be there for him. He is a great person who I think served this U.S. Senate with great distinction. I just wanted to say those few words here today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas about nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am appalled by this debate. Relying on confidential documents, some of my colleagues have continued, in my opinion, the public smearing of Billy Dale. I am astonished that they would use such a tactic in the U.S. Senate, one that I think they have historically reserved for Presidential nominees and accused Communists. I have little doubt that some of my colleagues would have been tempted to read Billy Dale's tax returns and medical files into the Record if they thought it would advance their objective to win at any cost. I believe there is substantial evidence to suggest the decision of the Justice Department to indict Mr. Dale was tainted by a political context in which the case was referred to the Clinton Justice Department. I don't think anybody doubts that. No. 1, when the case first came to the Justice Department, prosecutors ignored information that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Dale had committed the crimes for which they were seeking to charge him. No. 2, my Democratic colleagues spoke of an FBI financial analysis that showed Mr. Dale was improperly moving Travel Office funds. This was directly refuted by an accountant that even the FBI used to train its agents. This important information was not reflected in the prosecution memo and was, therefore, not considered by the grand jury. No. 3, the audit my colleagues have referred to conducted by Peat Marwick after the Travel Office firings found no evidence of wrongdoing. Despite a White House directive to find wrongdoing, Peat Marwick found no improper action. In fact, one of them commented the conclusion was reached before they even did their work. No. 4, critical evidence was ignored, again, when prosecutors failed to interview Mr. Dale's children until after the prosecution memo was written and the indictment returned. No. 5, also overlooked was the outstanding record that Billy Dale had established in his years working in the White House Travel Office. His colleagues and members of the media he served characterized him as a professional and an honest man. Again, this evidence was left out of the prosecution memo and not presented to the grand jury. I mentioned that Sam Donaldson testified in his behalf. The moneys that were involved were the media's moneys, and they had no complaints over the way he handled it. In closing, I want to point out that at the same time my Democratic colleagues are on the floor besmirching Mr. Dale and accusing him of being guilty after he was acquitted by 12 jurors who were peers of his in a formal trial, the White House has maneuvered a way in which its own people, those loyal first and foremost to the Clinton administration, will be reimbursed for legal expenses: Bruce Lindsey, Mack McLarty, and George Stephanopolous. I personally don't have any problem with that, but I think it hypocritical for them seeking reimbursement of their own but not seeking reimbursement for a person they pretty well admit they smeared and they took apart from a reputation standpoint. I am not here today to comment on the propriety of that reimbursement to those 23, other than what I said. In fact, if the law allows it, fine with me. My point in raising the issue is to show the sheer hypocrisy of the Clinton administration. The Clinton White House victimized Billy Dale and the other members of the Travel Office leading to an unprecedented political prosecution costing Mr. Dale upward of $500,000 in legal fees. Even the White House admitted that it lacked proper judgment in the handling of the Travel Office employees. I would like to quote again from a document produced to the Judiciary Committee by the White House. This is a document advocating a certain position. This was produced by the White House: You may all dimly remember the Travel Office affair in which a number of White House staff--many immature and self- promoting--took impulsive and foolhardy actions to root out problems at the beginning of the Clinton administration and to gallantly recommend that they take over its operation. The White House has the nerve to request the payment of legal fees to its own people but not to those that they victimized. Mr. President, that is the height of hypocrisy. I urge all of my colleagues to defeat the Reid-Levin amendment and do justice here. I hope some on the other side feel the same way. No American deserves the treatment Billy Dale has gotten and received from the White House, nor did he deserve the treatment he received from some of my colleagues last night on this floor. We should right this wrong which has been lingering for the last 3 years and lift the cloud above Mr. Dale's head and allow him to get on with his life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters, dated August 13, 1996, from Jack Quinn to Helene M. Goldberg, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. And on the other side?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Utah have?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do I have any time left?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we have it set up, there will be two votes, one on the Hatch amendment and one on the Reid-Levin amendment. I do not see any reason for two votes. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the Hatch amendment and the total vote be on the Levin amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let us do justice here. Let us reimburse this man and give him his reputation back.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. It has not been adopted yet?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is an amendment to the Biden amendment, both of which address a horrible problem of considerable concern to this body and, indeed, to everyone in this country who has become aware of it. Several months ago, law enforcement officers began to find an unusual phenomenon: that unscrupulous men were abusing a prescription drug to take advantage of women, particularly young women, by sedating them and raping them. That drug, Rohypnol--or, as it is called on the street, ``roofies''-- is a sedative marketed in literally dozens of countries. Rohypnol is not sold legally in the United States, nor can it be, because the manufacturer made the business decision that the already- crowded market for sedatives did not warrant the considerable time and expense of subjecting the product to the lengthy Food and Drug Administration approval process. Rohypnol is one of the widely used class of prescription medications known as benzodiazepine. These Valium-like drugs are commonly used to treat anxiety, sleep disorders, seizure disorders, and muscle spasms. Rohypnol is currently approved for human use in 64 countries. Many of my colleagues have seen reports about the use of Rohypnol in date rape, during which men have apparently placed Rohypnol in their date's drink and then, after the drug has taken effect, proceeded with a sexual assault. In response to the growing abuse of Rohypnol, the Drug Enforcement Administration instituted the formal rescheduling process for this drug by submitting a request on April 11, 1996, to the Food and Drug Administration to conduct an evaluation of the scientific and medical issues with regard to Rohypnol. That evaluation, an appropriate examination of the law enforcement and the health aspects of Rohypnol use, is continuing and ongoing. In a letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala to me on July 24, 1996, Secretary Shalala said that the goal of the rescheduling process was to make Rohypnol subject to increased penalties for illicit use and trafficking. Since this particular drug has become an agent of abuse and the focus of considerable debate, I agree with Secretary Shalala that it is appropriate to increase the penalties for illegal trafficking in Rohypnol. The amendment that I have just filed accomplishes that purpose, without depriving 64 countries of a drug that they find to be safe and efficacious, a drug which we have every reason to believe would have been found to be safe and efficacious in this country if the company were willing to go through our arduous and lengthy Food and Drug Administration approval procedures. The drug comes into our country is clandestinely, generally through Mexico, and certainly not legally. And the company that produces Rohypnol has nothing to do with that. Mr. President, none of us are sure how many times these drug-induced rapes have occurred. As far as I am concerned, one occurrence is one too many. I find that situation deplorable; it is a heinous crime for someone to use any sedative for the purpose of date-raping a partner. Our amendment is a strike back at those who would use controlled substances to engage in the most reprehensible of crimes--that is, rape. That is why we need the toughened penalties for the illegal use of Rohypnol, which is what Senator Coverdell and I are advocating with this amendment. The approach advocated in the Biden amendment, to reschedule the drug to schedule I, is seriously flawed. My major concern is that schedule I is the most restrictive category, which is reserved for the drugs which have a high potential for abuse, drugs which have no currently accepted medical use in treatment, and drugs for which there is a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. That is what a schedule I drug is. These standards clearly do not apply to Rohypnol, a member of the benzodiazepine class which generally falls within the less restrictive schedule IV. If the United States were to single out this drug and place it in schedule I, it would send a strong, and inappropriate, signal to other countries that we find there is no medical use for Rohypnol. Such a signal would be false. To reschedule Rohypnol this way simply is not right. It could unfairly result in the drug being rescheduled in some of the 64 other countries where it is not being abused as it is in the United States, where it is being used safely and efficaciously as a legitimate sedative. Rohypnol is no different from any other drug in its class, and many health care professions are fearful that if this benzodiazepine were removed from clinical use, ultimately the others will be removed also, if and when they are implicated in similar crimes. These pharmaceuticals are some of the most beneficial drugs in some of the most difficult areas of medical treatment, such as mental health. Mr. President, the more appropriate--and expeditious--alternative that we offer today is to impose all the penalties that apply to schedule I drugs to Rohypnol without rescheduling the drug. Specifically, our amendment would create an express violation under the Controlled Substances Act for unlawful distribution, with intent to commit a crime of violence, including rape, of a controlled substance to a person without that person's knowledge. The penalty will be up to 20 years without probation, and fines will be imposed of up to $2 million for an individual. The definition of ``crime of violence'' is provided in section 16 of title 18 of the United States Code. We believe our amendment advocates the appropriate way to solve this problem. It does not interfere with the safe and efficacious use of a drug which is approved in 64 countries, but not our own. I think my colleagues should agree it is not the manufacturer's fault that people are abusing this drug, bringing it across the border so it can be abused in this country in the way that Senator Biden has so ably explained. I deplore the situation as much as he; I just do not agree with his proposed solution to the problem. The Hatch-Coverdell amendment also provides enhanced penalties for manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with the intent to manufacture, dispense, or distribute large quantities of the drug flunitrazepam, marketed as Rohypnol. One gram or more of the drug will carry a penalty of not more than 20 years in prison and 30 milligrams a penalty of not more than 5 years in prison. In addition, the amendment extends the so-called long-arm provisions of 21 U.S.C. 959(a) to the unlawful manufacture and distribution of flunitrazepam outside the United States with the intent to import it unlawfully into this country. It also directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines so flunitrazepam will be subject to the same base offense level as schedule I or II depressants. Finally, at the request of law enforcement officials, we have added a new penalty for unlawful simple possession of Rohypnol. Law enforcement officers have indicated to me their concern that they need additional tools to apprehend would-be rapists before the crime is committed. Accordingly, the final provision provides increased penalties for simple possession of flunitrazepam of not more than 3 years. Mr. President, it has become obvious that we have a serious problem in this country with abuse of drugs by teenagers. While the overwhelming abuse of drugs by teenagers focuses on illicit drugs, the illegal diversion and misuse of medicines is also a growing problem in our country. And I have to say that many manufacturers are concerned that if the United States takes the approach advocated by the Senator from Delaware, then we could end up harming many people who need benzodiazepines throughout the world. In other words, what my colleague is contemplating could end up affecting all drugs in this class of sedatives, drugs which are of value. And this would work to the detriment of patients all over this country, and indeed, all over the world. I believe that the Federal Government must show it will not tolerate the use of this drug--or any drug--to facilitate rape. It is necessary and prudent that the Congress act, and approval of our amendment would be a good start. Mr. President, in closing, I must point out that 64 other countries have found this drug to be safe and efficacious. The manufacturer has chosen not to market it in this country because of the cost of the lengthy approval process at the FDA and the number of other similar products on the market. I cannot fault the manufacturer for that decision, because the drug approval process is too lengthy, in my estimation. Studies have shown approval times can extend from 10 to 15 years, at a cost of half a billion dollars. Approval of this drug probably would not have taken that long, but who knows? Of course, we will never know, because the manufacturer made the conscious choice not to introduce Rohypnol in the American market. The fact remains that use of these controlled substances in violent crimes, such as rape, ought to result in a sure-fire penalty, a penalty which sends the signal to would-be perpetrators that the United States will not tolerate such crimes. That is what our amendment does. If we want to do something about the misuse of this drug and other drugs of a similar nature, the benzodiazepines, then it seems to me this is the way to do it--impose tough penalties, let people know there are tough penalties, see a few people go to jail for years. Perhaps then we will find such drugs will not be abused anymore in this country. That is the signal we should be sending. So, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, because it is an important amendment. I thank my colleague from Delaware for raising this issue. He has been one of the principal legislators raising the issue about date rape. I give him a lot of credit for that. I give him credit for this amendment, as well, as I do my dear colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, who has worked very closely with me in formulating this amendment and bringing it to the floor today. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so we can return to the Biden amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 5257, as Modified

Mr. HATCH. I am absolutely astounded that people would come here and try to try Billy Dale again. I am now going to quote Mr. Watkins: On Monday morning, you came to my office and met with me and Patsy Thomasson. At that meeting, you explained this was on the First Lady's radar screen. The message you conveyed to me was clear: immediate action must be taken. I explained to you that I had decided to terminate the Travel Office employees, and you expressed relief that we were finally going to take action (to resolve the situation in conformity with the First Lady's wishes.) We both knew that there would be hell to pay if after our failure in the Secret Service situation earlier, we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes. You then approved the decision to terminate the Travel Office staff, and I indicated I would send you a memorandum outlining the decision and plan, which I did. This is a memorandum, which is marked privileged and confidential, is from David Watkins in response to the internal White House Travel Office Management Review. The White House even admits they were doing the wrong things. The distinguished Senator from Michigan claims this case should be referred to the Claims Court because the Senate has not done a report on the issue. I disagree: the facts in this case are not in dispute. The reason you have a Claims Court proceedings is because you have disputed facts. In this case, the facts are not in dispute. And these facts have been well-documented: no less than four reports have been done on this issue, as well as 2 years' worth of investigations and hearings, and a debate on the floor of this chamber that was filibustered when the bill was filibustered as a freestanding bill. Two years' worth of investigations and hearings on the House side has established the facts. The only reason to refer this case to the claims court would be if the facts were in question. The facts, in this instance, are not even in dispute. I might also add that the other side has referred to a document that, for all intents and purposes, is a privileged document that should never have been made public. It is the prosecutor's memorandum. Somebody has violated the most sacred canons of ethics in giving a prosecutor's memorandum, which tells the Government's side of the case. My colleagues have read from it like it is fact, when, in fact, it isn't fact. They refer to two documents--one is the ``prosecution memorandum,'' and the other is a ``plea agreement.'' Now, where did they get those documents? Those documents are not permitted to be given to anybody. Somebody at Justice or the prosecutor's office has violated the most sacred canons of ethics, giving a memorandum of one side of the case, which may or may not be the true facts with regard to the other side. In this case, they are not the true facts. They are relying on confidential documents that were given improperly--through the Department of Justice, I presume. The Administration ought to know better than that. Those documents are protected under the Department of Justice' own regulations. Once again, this is a politicization of the Justice Department, or the prosecutor's office, one or the other. There is no other way it could be. If the Justice Department has allowed White House people to get these documents, which apparently has been the case here, so they could leak them to Members of Congress to smear again Billy Dale and his colleagues, then that is further evidence of hypocrisy. One thing I found interesting, is the quote the distinguished Senator from Nevada has on the chart behind him. Notably, it is only part of the quote. Let me read the whole quote. I am reading from a response from Billy Dale's lawyer to an op ed written by Robert Bennett to the Wall Street Journal. In the op ed, Mr. Bennett suggested that Billy Dale had entered a plea agreement of guilty, which he never did. Mr. Bennett was incorrect in his suggestion that the letter of the counsel for Billy Dale of November 30, 1994, constituted a willingness by Billy Dale to admit the charge of embezzlement of which he was acquitted. The attorney for Billy Dale criticized Mr. Bennett because he said that Mr. Bennett accurately quoted the first sentence of that letter which stated that Mr. Dale was prepared to enter a plea of guilty to one single count under 18 U.S.C. 654. However, Mr. Bennett, as well as my friend from Nevada on his chart, chose to omit the sentence that immediately follows. That sentence says that Mr. Dale would not admit to any intent to defraud or to permanently deprive anyone of the money that was represented by the checks he deposited in his personal account. This admission is imperative in order for the Government to have an actual plea. In order to take a plea, Mr. Dale would have had to have admitted or pled guilty to defrauding the Government. Mr. Dale refused to do that. Now, the quote illustrated by the distinguished Senator from Nevada doesn't give the full facts. Instead of giving the full facts, the distinguished Senator from Nevada is attempting to retry Mr. Dale's case on the Senate floor. I think that it is wholly improper, especially when a jury tried it and Mr. Dale was acquitted within 2 hours. I will tell you one more thing. I am going to refer the matter of the leaking of confidential documents by the Administration to the Office of Professional Responsibility, because the Justice Department has acted irresponsibly, or the prosecutor's office has acted irresponsibly. I oppose the Reid amendment that would strike the provision to reimburse Billy Dale and to refer his case to the claims court. As I reiterated time and again, reimbursement of these legal fees simply remedies the grave miscarriage of justice that resulted in the investigation of Billy Dale and the other former White House Travel Office employees, which they are willing to reimburse. They are unwilling to admit, as really gentlemen ought to, that they have smeared this man, that the White House deliberately did it, that they were acting pursuant to Mrs. Clinton's demands, according to Watkins-- that was a memorandum written at or near the time of the demands--that the White House acted out of greed, and that they put Mr. Dale through a half-million dollars of legal fees, not to speak of the loss of reputation, the bad publicity, the tremendous strain of going through a criminal trial when they knew he did nothing wrong. Then, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come here to the floor of the Senate and claim that Mr. Dale entered a plea of guilty. Let me tell you something. I have been around courtrooms for many years of my life. I know a number of people who weren't guilty that would enter a plea to some really minor, lesser count so that they would not get bled to death with attorney's fees, court costs, ulcers, bad health, ruination of the family, and 101 other things that happen. Anybody that doesn't understand that has never been in a court of law, or at least doesn't understand, or just plain isn't telling the truth. For many months, the Congress and the Nation believed President Clinton had supported Mr. Dale's reimbursement. In fact, I publicly commended the President on numerous occasions for his equitable decision to sign the bill if we would pass it up here. Unfortunately, I understand the President Clinton has chosen to retract his support for such reimbursement. That is why I call this a hypocritical White House. Under these facts and circumstances, knowing what has transpired, and knowing the hell they put these people through, not to be willing to reimburse them is just unbelievable. I am very disappointed that the President has changed his position on this issue, because passing this legislation is the right thing to do. After being fired, the Travel Office employees were forced to seek legal representation to defend themselves against a Federal criminal investigation in which they had become targets. These public servants became the victims of unjust and inappropriate abuse of Federal law enforcement by some White House officials. I continue to be outraged by the arrogance of power demonstrated by this Administration in this matter. The way these individuals were fired and investigated was unconscionable. Over the course of the last several months, I have worked in a bipartisan effort to get a freestanding Billy Dale reimbursement measure passed. I wanted to pass this measure months ago so that President Clinton could put this ordeal behind him. He said he would sign it. But the Senate has continued to be met with resistance by some Members on the other side of the aisle. First, my colleagues wanted to offer a GATT amendment to the proposal and then they wanted to offer a minimum wage amendment. Then we worked together to advance their objectives on both the GATT and minimum wage issues. We dealt with both of them in the Senate. Having worked in a bipartisan manner, I thought the Senate would be able to pass a freestanding bill without any additional delays. The last time we tried to bring up this bill, the distinguished minority leader objected, stating Mr. Dale had a fee arrangement with his lawyers that would obligate him to pay only part of his bill, which, for the record, is not true. As well, we were told that some Members on the other side of the aisle had additional amendments--amendments which to this day we have not seen. Accordingly, Senator Shelby, the chairman of the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee took this initiative by incorporating the Dale measure in this appropriations bill. Yet, once again, this is an effort to thwart a proposal to restore Dale and his colleagues to the position they were in before being attacked by ``friends'' of President and Mrs. Clinton and their allies on the White House staff. Mr. Dale and his Travel Office colleagues served at the pleasure of the President. Some of the employees served as many as eight different Presidents, both Republican and Democrat. They provided years of faithful service. For this service, they were fired based upon trumped up charges by political ``friends'' of the President and the First Lady. These loyal public servants were then investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and the Internal Revenue Service. The FBI was intimidated to do this by none other than Mr. Kennedy at the White House, who no longer is there--and for good reason. Mr. Dale was subsequently indicted and prosecuted for embezzlement. On December 1, 1995, after 2\1/2\ years of being investigated by Federal agencies, as well as incurring tremendous legal expenses, Mr. Dale was found not guilty of all charges after only 2 hours of jury deliberation. You would think our colleagues on the other side would give credibility to that and not try to retry him here in the U.S. Senate. It is unseemly. This questionable use of the Federal criminal justice system created a situation where Mr. Dale had to spend some $500,000 on attorney's fees and even consider accepting a plea agreement, when he had committed no crime, but with the express provision that he would not plead guilty to embezzlement. To make matters worse, the administration went so far as to leak, in violation of its own regulations, a confidential letter in which Mr. Dale's attorney discussed the notion of a plea agreement--something that goes on in almost every criminal case where there is a chance of resolving a case by settlement. That is what was involved here in that matter. Mr. Dale's attorney, on behalf of his client, offered to end the case but expressly stated that Mr. Dale would not admit that he converted or stole funds, the necessary elements for an embezzlement prosecution. Faced with the ruinous legal costs, Mr. Dale's lawyers explored the possibility of a settlement, but not as an admission of guilt. The Department of Justice's leaking of the plea agreement discussion was irresponsible. But, this administration does have a troubling record of failing to respect the privacy of individuals. The President himself unfairly repeated information derived from this unconscionable leak, suggesting that the confidential discussions of a possible plea bargain with the prosecutors in the face of his own administration's outrageous abuse of the FBI should somehow count against Mr. Dale. Mr. Dale and his colleagues recently found themselves in the news again after trying to put the circumstances of this behind them. It was discovered that Mr. Dale's FBI background file was requested by the White House Personnel Security Office 7 months after he was fired. It now appears that the Travel Office Seven were not only fired unjustifiably but in some cases their personal background file summaries were inappropriately requested and possibly reviewed. Some think the whole 900 files that were improperly requested--and possibly reviewed; many of which were reviewed--was as a result of trying to get Billy Dale. So the invasion of privacy that these individuals have had to endure continued, and to have to put up with these arguments here today, again I say it is unseemly. What makes President Clinton's opposition to the reimbursement to Mr. Dale all the more astonishing is the fact that no less than 23 White House employees have requested Federal reimbursement of counsel fees in connection with congressional or independent counsel investigations into the White House Travel Office, or Whitewater. Among those who have requested reimbursement are Thomas (Mack) McLarty, George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Ricki Seidman, and Bruce Lindsay --just to mention a few of the 23. A number of these requests have been approved by the Clinton Justice Department. For instance, Mr. Podesta. I am glad they did in the case of Mr. Podesta. And the Department has said, ``We are continuing to process requests and anticipate acting on some of them in the near future.'' I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from the Department of Justice dated September 6, and a memorandum from the Department of Justice to Lisa Kaufman, Senior Investigative Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dated September 5, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I will take a couple of minutes, Mr. President. For the record, in the House interview with the Peat Marwick representative that was so mightily represented here, the Peat Marwick representative said that this case, meaning the White House Travel Office audit, was the only one he has been involved in where he was told the outcome before the investigation was completed. This was a trumped-up case against decent people, and even though everybody admits that it would have been better for Mr. Dale to not have put the money in his account, that it was a mistake to do that, nevertheless, nobody that I know of accuses him of having taken that money for his own use. In fact, to the contrary, the testimony in the trial, and that which resulted in his acquittal, was that he used the money properly, that he had to have access to it to be able to solve the problems with the media. So I think it is really overreaching to try to say because a person is indicted, that an injustice could not have occurred. I can give a lot of cases where people have been unjustly indicted. This is one of them. This is an exceptional case. It ought to be treated exceptionally. The fact of the matter is that the White House was trying to please four people, Harry Thomasson and his wife, Linda, Catherine, Cornelius, and Clerissa Cerda. The David Watkins memo makes that clear. I do not think anybody could read that memo and then fail to get outraged by the way these people were treated. Finally, just to make the Record clear, the plea agreement was leaked by someone in the Justice Department, or the White House, to U.S. News & World Report. The prosecution memo was provided to Chairman Clinger, who shared it with his minority counterparts, and somebody on the minority staff gave it to the media. The plea agreement had to be leaked by either the White House or the Justice Department. I am willing to take the White House word that they did not do that. Then, it had to be somebody in the Justice Department who did, because they are the only other people who had access to it. And it was improper. It was wrong. It was unethical. But be that as it may, that does not change the facts of this case that these were decent people who had served successive Presidencies, who had decent reputations, who did their job well and who pleased both the White House and the media, who were just plain mistreated, unjustly, by a superaggressive White House that was acting in its own greedy interests. And if there is ever a case where we ought to stand up and say this is an exceptional situation, we ought to provide this exceptional remedy, this is the case to do it in. So I am asking my colleagues to vote for the Hatch amendment, which would grant these funds, and to vote down the Reid-Levin amendment, which would again force this man to get attorneys and go to the Court of Claims to get that which is justly his to begin with. That is what you call justice in America: making wrongs right. Having said all of that, I understand I still have some time. So I yield the remainder of my time, and I do not want to keep my colleagues any longer than I have to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I could, pursuant to the UC, I send a modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, here we have the Clinton administration quietly approving reimbursement of legal expenses for its people at a time when President Clinton opposes giving Mr. Dale a ``special preference.'' That was said by the President in his Rose Garden conference of August 1, 1996. It was hypocritically said by the President under these circumstances. The reimbursement of the legal fees of Billy Dale, and other hard- working, honest civil servants wrongly fired from the White House Travel Office, will right the wrong of an overreaching executive branch. You would think they would want to get this mess behind them. But, no. They come here and besmirch representatives of the other side. These people have been through hell enough. It is unseemly. This provision is also an attempt, I might add, to make the Travel Office Seven whole at least financially by providing for their attorney's fees. My colleagues on the other side are willing to let the others get reimbursed their attorney's fees because they do not amount to much. They are also, I am sure, in support of reimbursing the 23 White House employees their attorney's fees, but not Mr. Dale. I believe reimbursing Mr. Dale and all of the Travel Office employees is the least we can do after all that they have been through. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to hold up this measure any longer--no more excuses, no more delays. Let us get this legislation passed today and put an end to it once and for all. I appreciate the Clinton administration's desire to cover the legal fees of those who have been loyal to the President, and I want to point out that a mechanism exists for the Department of Justice to consider doing so, too. That is OK. Mr. Dale is not so fortunate. He also was loyal to a number of Presidents, including this one. But his reward is to be put through an unseemly, vicious, miserable, costly criminal indictment and trial. To indict somebody, all you have to show is reasonable suspicion. To convict them, you have to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is where the White House, the Justice Department, and the prosecutors failed. And they rightly failed, because Mr. Dale was not guilty. As I noted, the Clinton White House staff is certainly availing themselves of the current avenues for reimbursement. But for the Clinton administration to oppose the reimbursement of Mr. Dale's legal fees at the same time White House staff are seeking reimbursement through the Department of Justice is transparent. It is inconsistent, to say the least. And I might add it is hypocritical. It is hypocritical. And it is amazing to me that the people at the White House don't have the guts to admit it and just say, ``Let us do what is right here.'' To me there isn't any question. They can't show any wrongdoing by Billy Dale. To try to besmirch him on the Senate floor in a double- jeopardy type of situation by bringing up what you think is one side of the case facts after a jury of his peers acquitted him, I have to tell you, it is unseemly. Moreover, anybody would consider a guilty plea to something that does not amount to very much if they could get a load of hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional legal fees off their backs. Anybody would do that. To suggest otherwise is just not right. Time after time, I have seen defendants consider plea agreements in unjust prosecutions, and this was one of them. This provision provides for payment of the legal expenses incurred by Billy Dale, Barney Brasseaux, John Dreylinger, Ralph Maughan, John McSweeney, and Gary Wright incurred after being terminated in May 1993, amid false allegations made by President Clinton's political cronies. Although Mr. Dale suffered the greatest financial loss, half a million dollars, the remaining six employees collectively incurred about $200,000 in their own defense. The appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 1994 provided approximately $150,000 in reimbursement of legal fees. This provision would provide the balance. This provision would not provide for compensation of all expenses associated with the investigation into the Travel Office matter, such as legal costs incurred in preparation for appearing before Congress. But it would provide for attorneys' fees and costs that resulted from these seven men defending themselves against criminal charges. The Travel Office employees will have 120 days after this legislation is enacted to submit verification of valid legal expenses. Reimbursement is limited up to $500,000, and does not include fees associated with appearances before or in preparation of congressional investigations or hearings. After the former Travel Office employees were fired due to charges of financial irregularities by political profiteers, they were investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Dale was subsequently indicted and tried as a result of the investigation and after incurring a tremendous legal debt for his defense, Mr. Dale was acquitted on all charges. The other Travel Office employees also incurred legal expenses for their own defenses. None of these former Travel Office employees held high-level positions in the administration. Many of them had worked for both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Were it not for their positions as employees of the Federal Government, and because they found themselves in the unfortunate position of having jobs coveted by friends of the Clintons, they would not have been subject to a Federal criminal investigation. The legal fees placed on these middle-class public servants have been astronomical. The monetary damage they sustained is quantifiable. This provision will not cover the emotional damage of this abuse of power by the Clinton administration. Nor will it return to these faithful Government employees their reputations or faith in the Government they had served. It merely covers the attorneys' fees and costs associated with the criminal investigation. According to Attorney General Reno, the White House has the authority to seek representation from the Department of Justice for Government employees who have been called to testify regarding matters within the scope of their employment. Customarily, representation of these employees is handled by attorneys for the agency for which the employee works. There are instances however, in which it would be inappropriate for agency attorneys to represent employees of the agency. In these cases, the Department of Justice has authority to provide reimbursement for the fees associated with retaining private counsel. With respect to the Travel Office and FBI files and Whitewater investigations, 23 White House employees have requested reimbursement for the legal fees of their private attorneys. Should a White House employee want to receive reimbursement for their legal fees for their cooperation in providing testimony, there is a relatively simple procedure they must follow. First, all bills for legal fees for private counsel must be submitted to the White House Counsel's Office. This information is then forwarded to the Civil Division of the Justice Department with a written recommendation as to the merit of the request. The Department will then, either approve or deny the request consistent with their own guidelines. That is the extent of it. As I stated previously, 23 White House employees have requested Federal reimbursement of counsel fees in connection with congressional or independent counsel investigations into the White House Travel Office or Whitewater. A number of these requests have been approved by the Clinton Justice Department, and the Department has said: ``we are continuing to process requests and anticipate acting on some of them in the near future.'' Today, I am not addressing whether the reimbursement of legal fees for individuals appearing before Congress is appropriate or not. In fact, if the law permits it, I have no objection to employees of the White House seeking reimbursement. My point in raising the issue at all is to expose the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration. The Clinton White House victimized Billy Dale and his colleagues which lead to the political prosecution of Mr. Dale leaving him with $500,000 in legal fees. Even the White House has admitted it improperly handled the White House Travel Office matter. In fact, a document produced to the Senate Judiciary Committee from the White House, which appears to be talking points for a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus, states the following, ``You all may dimly remember the Travel Office affair: in which a number of White House staff--many immature and self-promoting-- took impulsive and foolhardy actions to root out problems at the beginning of the Clinton administration and to then gallantly recommend that they take over its operation.'' Now, the White House has the chutspah to authorize the payment of fees to its people and not to Billy Dale. I find this astonishing. In a press conference on November 16, 1995, months after the Travel Office employees had been fired, President Clinton told the American public that he regretted the hardship that Mr. Dale and his colleagues had endured because of their abrupt firings. He also said that it appeared the White House did not handle the Travel Office dismissals appropriately. This was, in my opinion, a genuine attempt by the President to take responsibility for what happened to these loyal Government employees. Then on January 30, 1996, White House spokesman Mr. McCurry stated, ``Yes, and he would sign it'', referring to Mr. Clinton's intent to sign this measure. Again, just prior to the recent press conference in the Rose Garden on August 1, 1996, White House Press Secretary, Mr. Toiv, reaffirmed that President Clinton would sign legislation to reimburse the former Travel Office employees. He stated, and I quote, ``I would just repeat that when the bill arrives on the President's desk, he would sign it.'' Despite the administration's previous position, the President said at the August 1, 1996, press conference in response to a question regarding whether he would keep his word and sign this bill, ``I didn't--I never gave my word on that''. He then stated that an error had been made by his spokesman, ``I have made it clear to Mr. McCurry what my position is on this. And if an error was made by my spokesman, I'm sorry, but I have not broken my word to anybody.'' After President Clinton's apparent U-turn on this issue, in an interview with CNN on August 26, 1996, President Clinton took the extraordinary step to state that individuals serving in his administration have been ruined by pure, naked, raw politics''. He then went on to say that he would pursue every avenue, including raising money himself, to pay for the legal expenses of his aides. He then continued to say in reference to his aides, ``Do I feel terrible about the completely innocent middle-class people who have been wrecked financially by this? I certainly do. But I didn't abuse them. And it's high time that the people who abuse have to take responsibility for what they do''. I must admit that I am disappointed and shocked by the steps that this administration has taken to smear the Travel Office employees. The President's recent comments are in direct contradiction to his previous statements expressing concern for the former Travel Office employees. He is willing to assist his aides, and criticize the Congress for pursuing an investigation into wrongdoing by his administration, but will not accept responsibility for the wrongful treatment of Billy Dale? Give me a break. In the embarrassment of having lost a case so blatantly politically motivated, individuals within the Department of Justice chose to leak a document revealing that Mr. Dale considered accepting a plea bargain. Notably, as the Justice Department is fully aware, and is articulated in their own regulations, information regarding plea negotiations is confidential, not for public dissemination. I can only sympathize with Mr. Dale, who after years of constant invasion of his and his family's privacy, and incurring enormous expenses, considered a settlement in the hopes of ending this nightmare. Some of my colleagues have suggested that Mr. Dale admitted his culpability by considering a plea agreement. So too, has President Clinton, a former State attorney general and law professor. Now, we have a ``Dear Colleague'' letter distributed yesterday which also disseminates this confidential information. The facts are, however, that Mr. Dale never agreed to admit to committing the essential elements necessary for an embezzlement prosecution. He simply agreed to settle the case without an admission of guilt. Any suggestion that such a strategic tactic equates to an admission of guilt is outrageous and is yet just a further attempt to smear Mr. Dale's reputation. Department of Justice guidelines specifically state that information which ``tends to create dangers of prejudice without serving a significant law enforcement function,'' should not be released to the public. The disclosure of a plea agreement clearly fits within this definition. It is troubling to me that the Department of Justice, The President, and some of my colleagues in the Senate continue to ignore this. Whitewater is the investigation of the possibility of the Clintons using their political positions for personal gain in a virtually risk- free investment, and then, engaging in damage control activities. There has been no credible allegation that the Government somehow abused the Whitewater participants. By contrast, the Travelgate investigation is a case of sheer and utter abuse by the executive branch. By politicizing the Department of Justice and the FBI, the administration literally ruined the livelihood and reputation of seven hard-working civil servants. I believe a distinction should be made between reimbursement of fees for appearances before Congress and those involving the misuse of the judicial system for purely political purposes. This provision does not allow payment of legal fees in connection with any appearance before Congress. Accordingly, within the parameters of the provision, Whitewater witnesses could not be reimbursed. Appearing before Congress simply would not be covered by this provision. Unlike Travelgate, however, the Whitewater matter has not been completed. Many questions have been left unanswered in the Whitewater investigation and an Independent Counsel is still trying to determine whether or not there have been any criminal violations. Any perpetrators of a coverup must be brought to justice. Let us not forget it was just this past January when Rose law firm billing records mysteriously surfaced within the residence of the White House. Individuals with access to this area of the White House must be questioned to find the truth. The American people deserve no less. Unlike the witnesses in the Whitewater hearings, these former employees of the White House Travel Office were targeted by the Office of the President. They were victims of an administration that politicized the Department of Justice and the FBI. In contrast, the Whitewater witnesses have not been subjected to such persecution, and were questioned in the hope of shedding light on the details of the Clinton's investment. These witnesses certainly had information pertinent to the investigation, but they were not the target of the investigation. The individuals in the Travel Office matter were victimized not because they happened to come into contact with an investigation as many ordinary citizens could and is clearly the case with the Whitewater witnesses, but because they held positions in the Government that allowed them to become the subject of an investigative probe. I think this provision affirms that it is appropriate to compensate these people who have been put to such expense under these special circumstances. Moreover, the victims in the Travelgate matter are clear and identifiable. Mr. Dale and the six other former employees of the White House Travel Office had their reputations marred by the Clinton administration. They endured investigations by the FBI, the IRS, the Department of Justice, as well as that of Peat Marwick. Their families were placed under the strain of having been investigated for 2\1/2\ years, all without a single proven instance of wrong-doing on the part of the Travel Office employees. Mr. President, those on the other side have indicated that this bill which reimburses Billy Dale is unprecedented. I would like to point out that the House passed this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, and, despite the bipartisan support of the House, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber oppose this provision stating it sets a bad precedent. Let me just quickly quote Congressman Barney Frank, a well-respected Democrat, a memorandum of the Judiciary Committee over there, a person with whom I work on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate as well about this very issue. He said, ``This neither sets a precedent nor precludes someone. Any new case will be judged on the same merits.'' I agree with Congressman Frank. After all, Congress is not bound by the actions of another Congress. I might also add that in the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995, five of the Travel Office Seven had some of their legal expenses reimbursed. Since receiving reimbursement for their legal expenses at that time, these individuals have incurred more legal debt. Not included in the fiscal year 1995 Transportation appropriations bill were the legal expenses of Billy Dale. The provisions of this bill allow reimbursement for these additional fees, and for Mr. Dale. When the Transportation appropriations bill was passed, no one made a fuss. These individuals were reimbursed, as they deserved to be. Billy Dale deserves the same treatment. After all, he was sacked just like all the others, sacked unjustly. I have heard arguments that if we are to reimburse Billy Dale even after being indicted, the floodgates would be opened, and we would be obligated to reimburse anyone who was investigated by the Federal Government and found innocent of all charges. I do not believe that is the case, nor do I believe that this White House or any White House in the future is going to do the outrageous smearing that occurred in this case. This is a unique case that involved the executive branch at the highest level doing this to decent, honorable, honest people who have been vindicated by the courts of law. As we are all aware, Congress can decide the merits of all claims on a case-by-case basis. By passing this provision, we are not setting a precedent as is done in a court of law. We are simply passing a judgment based on the circumstances of this case that the firing of the Travel Office Seven was unjust and the manner by which they were investigated was inappropriate and unwarranted. The Administration erred in the way they dealt with the Travel Office situation. By reimbursing the legal expenses of Billy Dale and his colleagues, Congress would be taking a step to correct the administration's error in judgment. Now, reimbursing legal expenses is not wholly unprecedented, I might add. Although the circumstances are somewhat different, Hamilton Jordan is an example of someone who, in my opinion, was unfairly investigated after being accused of cocaine use. After an independent counsel was appointed and all the evidence gathered, Mr. Jordan was cleared of all charges. Congress then decided to reimburse Mr. Jordan's legal fees because the charges lodged against him were found to be baseless. Because unjust situations sometimes arise, the independent counsel statutes have provisions designed to rectify these grievances. Why can't my colleagues treat this matter as decently as those of us who were then in the Senate treated Hamilton Jordan? Why is it we have to go through this? Would it not be in the best interests of the President to put this behind us? The White House was able to bring the power of Federal law enforcement to bear on the Travel Office employees, and the facts show that they did it improperly for purposes of greed. In response to the claim that such a payment is unprecedented, I say that the circumstances by which Billy Dale and the others were fired is unprecedented, and it should be treated as such. We are not talking about some low-level bureaucrat in the halls of the bureaucracies of this city. We are talking about right in the halls of the upper levels of the White House itself where this injustice was perpetrated. The circumstances by which Mr. Billy Dale and the others were prosecuted and were investigated and charged and targeted, and prosecuted in Dale's case, were unprecedented. This is a meritorious case for reimbursement. It is as meritorious as any I have ever seen. What was done to these people never should have occurred in this manner. House Republicans and House Democrats recognize this fact. There was not an attempt to indict him all over, convict him again after a jury acquitted him, or go through the facts in a further attempt to smear Mr. Dale. The fact is, the media knew he was honest, and everybody else knew he was honest, and, above all, a jury of his peers found him to be honest. What was done to these people should not have been done. We had bipartisan passage in the House--we ought to have that here. I think everyone in this body recognizes that fact. If we in Congress are to reimburse legal fees on a case-by-case basis when the case merits it, as this one does, then it is the right thing to do, and I have never, never seen a case more worthy than this one that could come before the Senate. I can tell some other injustices that were certainly terrible that should be straightened out, too, but nothing like this. It has also been suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that H.R. 2937 is a private relief bill, and typically these bills are referred to the Court of Claims for factfinding. First, I would like to point out that H.R. 2937 is not a private relief bill. This bill was passed through the House on the Suspension Calendar, which handles public bills. There is a separate calendar that deals with private relief bills. The Congressional Record reflects the fact that H.R. 2937 was on a public bill calendar, and there was a rollcall vote when it finally passed earlier this year. Second, a private relief bill must name all those making a claim. H.R. 2937 does not name the former Travel Office employees specifically. Even if H.R. 2937 was a private relief bill, however, congressional referrals are typically made to the Court of Claims only if the facts of the claim are complicated and unclear. In this case, numerous reports as well as 2 years' worth of investigations and House hearings have exposed the facts in this case. The facts are very clear, and there is very little dispute to what occurred. Additionally, the only other reason to refer the matter to the Claims Court would be if there was a dispute as to the amount of money that is being claimed. Once again, Mr. Dale and his former colleagues submitted their bills to the House Judiciary Committee, and those amounts were included in the House bill. There is no dispute about the bills that have been submitted. In short, there is no reason why my colleagues should want to remove this language from the Treasury-Postal bill on the basis that the facts are unclear. We in this body and the administration know what the facts are and we know where the blame lies. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will vote to support the Hatch amendment and will vote to turn down this attempt to throw this matter into the Court of Claims. There is nothing in dispute here. I think everybody who is fair will acknowledge that. Might I ask, how much of my time remains?